3 ms·

Companies use these to save time. Interviews take hours of time for multiple people. They are also soul-crushing for the interviewers to be forced to sit while

Companies use these to save time. Interviews take hours of time for multiple people. They are also soul-crushing for the interviewers to be forced to sit while watching people flounder at the whiteboard. At several companies I have been with, they had a basic 20 question skills test. It was enough to cut the number of time-wasting interviews massively. I assume that the "Full application" process is there for a similar reason. It shows them up front that you know the basics, or know how to Google the basics. At every company I have worked at that had a pre-test or code submission application, people who submitted the test/sample would have an enormous leg up. With interviews it was like 10-20:1 interview:hire ratio. With the test/sample it was more like 3:1. It is a massive time/effort saving filter on the company's part. Companies are NOT trying to get free work out of you. If they wanted to hook to a third-party API, it would be easier to use the API sample code. They are trying to save themselves hundreds of dollars in staff salaries and lost productivity, to interview a person who can't function in a realistic programming environment. These are EXACTLY the sort of companies you should apply to if you really want a job.

geofft 9y ago
If a company thinks that their time is about 20 times more valuable than my time, why would they stop thinking that once I start working there? If a company thinks that the interview process is "soul-crushing", why wouldn't they also think that of code review, mentoring employees, etc.? Isn't it also true that one-on-ones are a bunch of time that the manager is spent with lesser coders, and it's a time-saving measure to cancel one-on-ones so the manager can write more code?
- Tinyforebrain 9y ago
  There is usually a few HR hours put into every interview, plus you are adding 1-6 more people at various levels of the company who might be a part of the interview. Most of the people doing the interview don't have any real training in it, and don't do it as part of their job. They may do ten full interviews to hire one person(Or more). So yes, their time is more valuable because more people and more hours are involved. The cost for hiring a person, in time and resources, is the sum of the costs of all 10 of the interviews.
  - geofft 9y ago
    Isn't the point of interviewing that you gain an entirely new person on your team, who is contributing some 2000 hours per year to your team and hopefully staying for at least a few years? Even if you measure in hours and assume all hours are equal (i.e., you're hiring people equal to you, not people better / more skilled in certain areas than you), the cost of hiring a person is about three orders of magnitude smaller than the expected benefit. Interviewing (and doing a good job of it) is roughly the most impactful thing you can do at a job. If your company doesn't believe this, doesn't train people in interviews, and doesn't define interviewing to be part of people's jobs, I really have no idea why I should think you're well-managed. (I'm entirely serious. I don't know where you work, but you should get out before it breaks your brain further. I'm still recovering from the ways my previous employer broke my brain in regards to how software shops should work, and it's been a long while since I worked there.) If your company doesn't define interviewing to be a part of the job description, do they define code review? Training? Mentorship? Management? Or is everyone expected to just write code?

geofft 9y ago

If a company thinks that their time is about 20 times more valuable than my time, why would they stop thinking that once I start working there? If a company thinks that the interview process is "soul-crushing", why wouldn't they also think that of code review, mentoring employees, etc.? Isn't it also true that one-on-ones are a bunch of time that the manager is spent with lesser coders, and it's a time-saving measure to cancel one-on-ones so the manager can write more code?

Tinyforebrain 9y ago
There is usually a few HR hours put into every interview, plus you are adding 1-6 more people at various levels of the company who might be a part of the interview. Most of the people doing the interview don't have any real training in it, and don't do it as part of their job. They may do ten full interviews to hire one person(Or more). So yes, their time is more valuable because more people and more hours are involved. The cost for hiring a person, in time and resources, is the sum of the costs of all 10 of the interviews.
- geofft 9y ago
  Isn't the point of interviewing that you gain an entirely new person on your team, who is contributing some 2000 hours per year to your team and hopefully staying for at least a few years? Even if you measure in hours and assume all hours are equal (i.e., you're hiring people equal to you, not people better / more skilled in certain areas than you), the cost of hiring a person is about three orders of magnitude smaller than the expected benefit. Interviewing (and doing a good job of it) is roughly the most impactful thing you can do at a job. If your company doesn't believe this, doesn't train people in interviews, and doesn't define interviewing to be part of people's jobs, I really have no idea why I should think you're well-managed. (I'm entirely serious. I don't know where you work, but you should get out before it breaks your brain further. I'm still recovering from the ways my previous employer broke my brain in regards to how software shops should work, and it's been a long while since I worked there.) If your company doesn't define interviewing to be a part of the job description, do they define code review? Training? Mentorship? Management? Or is everyone expected to just write code?